Posted on 06/12/2009 5:58:20 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Priests are not infalliable. Many have made mistakes.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
The First Commandment warns us not to put anything before God. As a Protestant Christian, it would be very unlikely to read or hear a statement, similar to that which you wrote above, coming from one of the members of my church. It appears to me that Catholics ( given your post) revere their church more than they do Christ.
A member of my church would instinctively say that they are “committed” to Christ and accept Him as their Savior. Their next statement would be an expression of profound gratitude for Christ's atonement. If they thought to mention the denomination and their membership in it at all, it would be merely as an after thought.
I am trying to be respectful here. I am merely pointing out that the sentence that you wrote above leaves me ( as a Protestant) utterly befuddled as to why would say what you did.
Yes, I find the near adoration of Mary irritating, as well as asking Saints for their “intercession”. The relics that is going around the world recently ( I forget the man's name) leaves me confused. Ditto for digging up John Newman's body. I could easily let all of this pass. I don't see this as being central to Catholic belief.
But...Your sentence above crystallizes for me what is profoundly different between Catholic belief and my own. Commitment to Christ is fundamental, central, and the first thing that comes to mind when I am asked about my faith. **His salvation and atonement**. I don't immediately talk about the institution of the church.
***Calvin believed that people were predestined to be damned or saved....If Protestants have shrugged off those two incubuses, it only shows their good sense.
Er....so did Augustine***
Can you document this? I am not aware of any double predestination theology advocated by Augustine.
Remember that Augustine’s closest definition of the elect were simply those who persevered until the end of their lives. Augustine was also a great point of contention between East and West; they have never accorded him the distinction of Father of the Church and Augustine’s followers were largely responsible for the lessening of the Patristic Church in the West.
Double predestination was condemned at the Council of Valance (530) and by the Council of Mainz (848). Are there certain individuals predestined to Heaven? There is Scriptural evidence. Are there certain individuals predestined to Hell? No Scriptural proofs exist.
***Now if you want to say that some of the greatest Church leaders didn’t have good sense, well, then you have another problem.***
There were several periods in Augustine’s life in which he showed poor sense such as the more than a decade in which he was a dedicated Manichean.
***Rome teaches that their priests are somehow unscathed by sin***
Prove it. The writings of the Church are open to all on sites like vatican.va and usccb.org. Prove it.
***and that we are to trust their interpretations of Scripture rather than our own.***
Personal interpretation of Scripture is proscribed by Scripture. It is the interpretation of the Church, not individual priests, that is authorized by Jesus.
***It’s as though education and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit are thrown out the window among Roman Catholic laity. Not so among Evangelicals; we are like the Bereans, who didn’t take some religious leader’s word on something, but we trust Scripture instead.***
How’s that working out for you guys? God’s one Truth is now interpreted in tens of thousands of different way by recognized denominations and non denominationals, and in millions of ways by individuals who do not affiliate with or agree with their own denominations.
How many so called Christians here adhere line by line with the Nicene Creed? The Creed is the defining creed for Christians. I know a bunch who don’t.
We also have a quiet reformation going on "under the radar." There are literally millions of families in the USA that refuse to participate in the Cult of the State, who refuse to render unto Caesar that which is God's their children. It's this irascible remnant that will shape the future, not the vast flabby mass of compliant jellyfish.
Wow, I don't know how many times I have to post this.
CHAP. 11 [VI.]— THAT SOME MEN ARE ELECTED IS OF GOD'S MERCY.
"Many hear the word of truth; but some believe, while others contradict. Therefore, the former will to believe; the latter do not will." Who does not know this? Who can deny this? But since in some the will is prepared by the Lord, in others it is not prepared, we must assuredly be able to distinguish what comes from God's mercy, and what from His judgment. "What Israel sought for," says the apostle, "he hath not obtained, but the election hath obtained it; and the rest were blinded, as it is written, God gave to them the spirit of compunction,—eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, even to this day. And David said, Let their table be made a snare, a retribution, and a stumblingblock to them; let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see; and bow down their back always." [Rom. 11.7.] Here is mercy and judgment,—mercy towards the election which has obtained the righteousness of God, but judgment to the rest which have been blinded. And yet the former, because they willed,12 believed; the latter, because they did not will believed not. Therefore mercy and judgment were manifested in the very wills themselves. Certainly such an election is of grace, not at all of merits. For he had before said, "So, therefore, even at this present time, the remnant has been saved by the election of grace. And if by grace, now it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace." [Rom. 11.5.] Therefore the election obtained what it obtained gratuitously; there preceded none of those things which they might first give, and it should be given to them again. He saved them for nothing. But to the rest who were blinded, as is there plainly declared, it was done in recompense. "All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth." [Psalm 25.10.] But His ways are unsearchable. Therefore the mercy by which He freely delivers, and the truth by which He righteously judges, are equally unsearchable.
CHAP. 16.— WHY THE GIFT OF FAITH IS NOT GIVEN TO ALL.
Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God's gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given. But why it is not given to all ought not to disturb the believer, who believes that from one all have gone into a condemnation, which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even if none were delivered therefrom, there would be no just cause for finding fault with God. Whence it is plain that it is a great grace for many to be delivered, and to acknowledge in those that are not delivered what would be due to themselves; so that he that glorieth may glory not in his own merits, which he sees to be equaled in those that are condemned, but in the Lord. But why He delivers one rather than another,—"His judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past finding out." [Rom. 11.33.] For it is better in this case for us to hear or to say, "O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" [Rom. 9.20.] than to dare to speak as if we could know what He has chosen to be kept secret. Since, moreover, He could not will anything unrighteous.
CHAP. 34 [XVII.]— THE SPECIAL CALLING OF THE ELECT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE BELIEVED, BUT IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY BELIEVE.
Let us, then, understand the calling whereby they become elected,—not those who are elected because they have believed, but who are elected that they may believe. For the Lord Himself also sufficiently explains this calling when He says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." [John 15.16.] For if they had been elected because they had believed, they themselves would certainly have first chosen Him by believing in Him, so that they should deserve to be elected. But He takes away this supposition altogether when He says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." And yet they themselves, beyond a doubt, chose Him when they believed on Him. Whence it is not for any other reason that He says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you," than because they did not choose Him that He should choose them, but He chose them that they might choose Him; because His mercy preceded them according to grace, not according to debt. Therefore He chose them out of the world while He was wearing flesh, but as those who were already chosen in Himself before the foundation of the world. This is the changeless truth concerning predestination and grace. For what is it that the apostle says, "As He hath chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world"? [Eph. 1.4.] And assuredly, if this were said because God foreknew that they would believe, not because He Himself would make them believers, the Son is speaking against such a foreknowledge as that when He says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you;" when God should rather have foreknown this very thing, that they themselves would have chosen Him, so that they might deserve to be chosen by Him. Therefore they were elected before the foundation of the world with that predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do; but they were elected out of the world with that calling whereby God fulfilled that which He predestinated. For whom He predestinated, them He also called, with that calling, to wit, which is according to the purpose. Not others, therefore, but those whom He predestinated, them He also called; nor others, but those whom He so called, them He also justified; nor others, but those whom He predestinated, called, and justified, them He also glorified; assuredly to that end which has no end. Therefore God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so. The Apostle James says: "Has not God chosen the poor in this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which God hath promised to them that love Him?" [James 2.5.] By choosing them, therefore; He makes them rich in faith, as He makes them heirs of the kingdom; because He is rightly said to choose that in them, in order to make which in them He chose them. I ask, who can hear the Lord saying, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you," and can dare to say that men believe in order to be elected, when they are rather elected to believe; lest against the judgment of truth they be found to have first chosen Christ to whom Christ says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you"? [John 15.16.]
A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints
We are elected so that we may believe. We are not elected because we believe. A distinct and important difference.
I would point out that Augustine's Treatise of the Saints was not only at the end of his career, but was inspired by the Blessed Cyprian.
***I would point out that Augustine’s Treatise of the Saints was not only at the end of his career, but was inspired by the Blessed Cyprian.***
And Augustine’s Predestination theology was in total contradiction to Cyprian. And none of this is in agreement with the Fathers. That is why Augustine is a minor Father at best in the East.
Augustine stops short of double predestination; he has nobody condemned to hell.
***We are elected so that we may believe. We are not elected because we believe. A distinct and important difference.***
It is a difference; yet we have the words of Jesus offering salvation to all; yet acknowledging that not all will accept it.
That's not what Augustine states. It was because of Cyprian that he came to this conclusion.
And none of this is in agreement with the Fathers.
None of the Fathers you have chosen. Besides, while there is substantial evidence it is in agreement with a number of Fathers, it really doesn't have to be. From a Protestant perspective all it has to be is in agreement with the scriptures. Are you prepared to say that your faith and repentance is not a gift from God?
Augustine stops short of double predestination; he has nobody condemned to hell.
That seems to be a hollow argument. In that case, neither does a Reformer. We simply acknowledge what Augustine acknowledge, that faith and repentance is a gift from God. You are elected to believe.
It is a difference; yet we have the words of Jesus offering salvation to all; yet acknowledging that not all will accept it.
They can't acknowledge it until their eyes and ears are opened.
Why is it that anti-Catholics never get right what they’re talking about?
You wrote:
“I’ve never said that non-Roman Catholic pastors are infallible. Indeed, every one that I’ve met is a sinner.”
So you’re confusing impeccability with infallibility? Great.
“Rome teaches that their priests are somehow unscathed by sin,...”
Never, not one, ever has the Catholic Church taught what you just said - nor anything remotely like it for that matter.
The issues described may be problems, and they may be similar to some problems being experienced in the Catholic church, but they are no more identifiable with Catholicism than aging and eating too many carbs are with protestantism. (Also, not a very accurate description of priestly behavior.)
Honestly, where do you come up with these things?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.